This claim explains a lot about our previous interactions. It's also the polar opposite of my experience.
I have never heard a single advocate of nuclear advocating for fossil fuels, and I certainly don't do it myself. I've also never heard them speak against solar (and again I also don't do this). It's purely about defending nuclear from fear-mongering and trying to make it possible faster, rather than being crushed under ridiculous and unjustified regulations.
1. It relies on a ridiculously expensive massive steam turbine
2. It's a major infrastructure project, which the USA seems incapable of building without massive cost over run.
Yes, there are other reasons why nuclear is slow and expensive, but those two can't be fixed with a magic wand getting rid of nuclear regulations
Also, there's an easy way to minimize regalatory bother: just build an already approved design, like thr AP1000.
And yet Canada was able to build them decades ago, along with many other poorer countries.
Only true because of the regulatory burden imposed by the government on their construction, there's nothing about the design or construction of the plants which takes that long.
Look at China, it takes them about 6 years to build a nuclear power plant. Politicians have been using climate change as a political tool for decades, if they had started pushing the construction of these plants back when they first started talking about the issue we could have been bringing enough power plants online by now to already have solved the problem.
"The oil burning power plant is a natural part of the reserve energy plan, and replacing it with nuclear would be way too expensive."
After that debate, the green party (in combination with their other coalition parties) has now green lit the construction of a new natural gas power plant, as part of the strategy of using wind and solar during optimal weather conditions and fossil fuels in poor weather conditions. This strategy goes under the long-term plan of using green hydrogen in the future. Currently there exist a experiment of using green hydrogen for steel production, which has yet to become economical viable, and experts in the field of green hydrogen is predicting around ~50 years until green hydrogen may become economical viable for electricity production. Until then the plan is to continue expanding the fleet of fossil fuel burning power plants.
To me its very obvious who is trying to sell fossil fuels for another 50 or so years. It is those that fund, approve and build new ones. The people responsible for those decisions are responsible for the fossil fuels that will get burned, and in turn delaying implementation of non-fossil fueled solutions.
France's nuclear electricity isn't even that cheap and they were all built decades ago.